my views on the local news in Minnesota

Dakota County

September 15, 2007

Today's ThisWeek tells us that at their recent meeting, most Dakota County commissioners expressed frustration and resentment towards Governor Pawlenty for vetoing transportation funding. They're upset because they didn't get the tax increases they wanted. In particular, Dakota County Board Chair Mike Turner, serving District 5 in Burnsville since 1989, said he resented the fact that the governor did not grant his request for a personal meeting. Sounded like a tantrum to me.

The article did not mention that Governor Pawlenty had his own transportation bill in the last legislative session. But Turner and his buddies were "frustrated" and "resented" that Pawlenty vetoed their transportation bill.

Commissioner Joe Harris said despite about five years of building "a tremendous amount of transportation alliances," and funding bills have passed, they have been unable to over ride the governor's veto.

Commissioner Tom Egan suggested that the County should "better prioritize and narrow its list of legislative initiatives in order to better define the county's concerns," but the article did not report any agreement to that suggestion. Instead, Commissioner Paul Krause of Lakeville said that narrowing the county's focus would be difficult, and he thinks the county has been doing "a heck of a job."

County Administrator Brandt Richardson, who would like to see a local sales tax, encouraged "more personal contact with legislators to build relationships."

Because the voters want Pawlenty to do exactly what he has been doing in holding down taxes. You don't have enough votes to override Pawlenty's veto because the voters didn't give them to you. Why aren't you talking about how to get runaway spending under control? "Nurturing people" isn't part of the government's job.

Wake up. If you cannot act like leaders, then resign. On the other hand, if you want to do the best job for your constituents, then maybe you should take off your DFL blinders and pursue solutions that are in line with what the voters have told you they want.

August 15, 2007

I remember seeing young children handing out
fans at the fair. If memory serves, the
fans were green with white lettering reading “Think Green.” I refrained from acting on my impulse to go
over and tell the kids that it’s better to think for yourself. I was hot but I passed up the free fan.

I also remember observing, while employed in a small company,
the way that certain employees tended to mimic the phrases most often used by
the Boss. As though using the same
phrases would be good for the career.

Now the favorite words seem to be “green” and
“sustainable.” They are popping up
everywhere. These
words carry with them an aura of politically correct environmental concern
without actually having any specific definition. This makes them highly malleable and favorites
of politicians and those who wish to appear politically correct without actually
specifying what they mean.

And by not specifying what is meant, there can be no
argument, because there’s nothing to argue about. Implementation of the goals of “green” and
“sustainable” can thus be achieved behind closed doors, the results when
unveiled simply described as the achievement of “green” and “sustainable”
goals, without any discussion of what actually happened and whether it was a
good idea to begin with. After all, who
can argue with “green” or “sustainable?”

Eager to capitalize on the advantages of using these terms, Dakota County
has created a department that’s not really a department, and called it “the
Green Team.” Michelle Beeman, with an impressive resume in environmental areas, was named as the county's first Environment and Natural Resources Director.

An article in the local ThisWeek paper goes into some detail in tracing the impetus for the county's action all the way back to a 1992 UN conference in Rio de Janeiro which used the terms "green" and "sustainable" as part of its statement of principles in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and its Statement of Principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests.

According to the article in This Week, a county representative explained, "We're trying to get away from the concept of silos and departments. We have to let people see how everything we do is related to the environment -- protecting and improving the environment." He emphasized "the need for
sustainability" as the overarching principle in the county's comprehensive
plan.

Sounds warm and fuzzy, but this doesn't really tell us
anything about what the county intends to do differently, how much it will
cost, whom it will impact, or whether or not it will benefit county residents. Apparently, the county would rather avoid any
public feedback that might be generated by publicizing what exactly they're up
to.

Which leaves us with the words, "green" and
"sustainable." A quick google
of the phrase "not sustainable" yields the following opinions on what
is not sustainable:

So, with sustainability as the county's "overarching principle," where might we be headed? If the preceding examples are representative of how the county will interpret sustainability, it sounds like we're in for some major changes. I know my memory sometimes fails me, but did any of us vote for this? I don't remember anyone campaigning for my vote on a platform of sustainability, but maybe I just missed it.